{"id":4572,"date":"2003-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003"},"modified":"2018-11-27T01:35:56","modified_gmt":"2018-11-26T20:05:56","slug":"dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2004 (3) BomCR 445, 2003 (4) MhLj 649<\/div>\n
Author: A Deshpande<\/div>\n
Bench: R Kochar, A Deshpande<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 A.P. Deshpande, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
\nthe learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The petitioner by the instant petition questions the legality and validity
\nof the order passed by the respondent No. 2 State Government dated 24-4-2003 at
\nAnnexure ‘F’. The said order is purported to have been passed in exercise of
\npowers under Section 42(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar
\nPanchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 in an appeal filed by the
\nrespondent No. 3, a defeated candidate in municipal election.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petitioner was elected as a municipal councillor to Municipal
\nCouncil, Wadsa Desaiganj in December, 2001 as a candidate of Bharatiya Janata
\nParty whereas the respondent No. 3 had contested the election as a candidate for
\nthe rival party and had lost the said election. The third respondent filed an appeal
\nbefore the Minister for State, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya
\nmaking a complaint therein to the effect that the petitioner is a member of joint
\nfamily of his mother and the petitioner’s mother who is owner of a rice mill
\nsituated at Desaiganj, Wadsa had effected some illegal construction by making an
\nencroachment on Government land which caused obstruction to the public way.
\nTo put it in short, it was the grievance made by the respondent No. 3 that as a
\nconsequence of the said alleged illegal construction, the petitioner has incurred a
\ndisqualification as he has constructed, either himself or through his dependent, an
\nillegal and unauthorised structure violating the provisions of the Act or the
\nMaharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act or the Rules or bye-laws framed
\nunder the said Act. It was alleged by the third respondent before the second
\nrespondent that the petitioner is directly or indirectly responsible for helping in the capacity as such councillor in carrying out the illegal and unauthorised
\nconstruction. As referred to hereinabove, on the said complaint, the second
\nrespondent has passed an order declaring the petitioner as having incurred a
\ndisqualification and has further proceeded to pass an order disqualifying the
\npetitioner for a period of five years from holding the office of councillor as is
\nprovided under Sub-section (4) of Section 42.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised various grounds in
\nthe petition and attempted to substantiate the same, we need not deal with the
\nother grounds except the one which is strenuously pressed in service and which
\nrelates to interpretation of Sections 44 and 42 of the Act. The point raised by the
\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner is to the following effect:–\n<\/p>\n
 His submission is that the ground on which the second respondent has
\npassed an order of disqualification and the petitioner’s consequential removal
\nfrom the office of Councillor is squarely covered by Section 44(1)(e) which lays
\ndown that a councillor shall be disqualified to hold office as such, if at any time
\nduring his term of office, he –\n<\/p>\n
 “(a)…………………………\n<\/p>\n
 (b)…………………………\n<\/p>\n
 (c)…………………………\n<\/p>\n
 (d)…………………………\n<\/p>\n
 (e) has constructed or constructs by himself, his spouse or his dependent,
\nany illegal or unauthorised structure violating the provisions of this Act,
\nor the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Mah.
\nXXXVII of 1966) or the rules or bye-laws framed under the said Acts; or
\nhas directly or indirectly been responsible for, or helped in his capacity
\nas such Councillor in, carrying out such illegal or unauthorised
\nconstruction or has by written communication or physically obstructed or
\ntried to obstruct, any Competent Authority from discharging its official
\nduty in demolishing any illegal or unauthorised structure,
\nand he shall be disabled subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) from
\ncontinuing to be a Councillor and his office shall become vacant:
\nProvided that –\n<\/p>\n
 (i) a Councillor shall not be disqualified under Clause (c) if he is engaged
\nfor the Council without receiving any remuneration therefor or appears
\nand conducts his own case in a Court of law or before any authority
\nunder this Act against the Council irrespective of whether such a
\nCouncillor is a legal practitioner by profession or not;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) for the purpose of Clause (d) when the Councillor applies for leave,
\nsuch leave shall be deemed to have been granted unless it is refused
\nwithin a period of sixty days from the date of his application.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) When a Councillor whether elected or nominated incurs any of the
\ndisqualifications in Sub-section (1), it shall be the duty of the Chief
\nOfficer to submit a report to the Collector within one month of his
\nbecoming aware of the disqualification through any source whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) In every case the authority to decide whether a vacancy has arisen
\nshall be the Collector. The Collector may give his decision on receipt of  the report of the Chief Officer under Sub-section (2), or on his own
\nmotion or on an application made to him by a voter and such decision
\nshall be communicated to the Councillor concerned, the Chief Officer
\nand the applicant, if any. Until the Collector decides that a vacancy has
\narisen and such decision is communicated as provided above, the
\nCouncillor shall not be deemed to have ceased to hold office.”
\nThe scheme of Section 44 clearly brings home the position that if a
\nCouncillor incurs a disqualification contained in Section 16 [except the
\ndisqualification specified in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of that section] or has
\nincurred other disqualifications contained in Section 44, then in that eventuality,
\nremoval is permissible in the manner laid down in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 44. Sub-section (2) obliges the Chief Officer, on noticing that any
\nCouncillor has incurred a disqualification, to submit a report to the Collector
\nwithin the stipulated period. Sub-section (3) categorically declares that in every
\ncase the authority to decide whether a vacancy has arisen shall be the Collector.
\nThe Collector is empowered to act on the report submitted by the Chief Officer
\nor suo motu or on an application made to him by any voter to give a decision as
\nto whether the Councillor has incurred a disqualification. It is only on
\ncommunication of the said decision by the Collector to the Councillor concerned,
\nthe said decision takes effect. Till the decision of the Collector is communicated
\nto the Councillor, he shall not be deemed to have ceased to hold the office. Sub-
\nsection (4) of Section 44 provides a remedy of appeal to the aggrieved person and
\nthe appeal is provided to the State Government and the State Government’s order
\nhas been given finality. The orders that are expected to be passed by the
\nCollector and the State Government under Section 44 are to be passed after
\ngranting an opportunity of hearing to the Councillor and the same is provided for
\nin the proviso to Sub-section (4).\n<\/p>\n
 5. In the instant case, the removal of the Councillor is squarely for the
\nreason of he having incurred a disqualification under Section 44(1)(e) and or, no
\nother count. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this view of the matter,
\nsubmits that the only course which is permissible to be adopted for the removal
\nof the petitioner was by an order of the Collector and the State Government being
\nan appellate authority could not have entertained the complaint directly and
\npassed an order unseating the petitioner Councillor, besides disqualifying him for
\na further period of 5 years from the date of the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, viz.
\nthe appellant\/complainant before the State Government, has tried to justify the
\norder by placing reliance on Section 42 of the Act, which reads thus :–\n<\/p>\n
 Section 42. Liability of Councillors to removal from office. — (1) The State
\nGovernment may on its own motion or on the recommendation of the
\nCouncil remove any Councillor from office if such Councillor has been
\nguilty of any misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or of any
\ndisgraceful conduct during his current term of office or even during his
\nimmediately preceding term of office as a Councillor.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) The State Government may likewise remove any Councillor from
\noffice if such Councillor has in the opinion of the State Government
\nbecome incapable of performing his duties as a Councillor.\n<\/p>\n
(3) No resolution recommending the removal of any Councillor for the
\npurposes of Sub-section (1) or (2) shall be passed by a Council and no
\norder of removal shall be made by the State Government, unless the
\nCouncillor to whom it relates has been given a reasonable opportunity of
\nshowing cause why such recommendation or order, as the case may be,
\nshould not be made.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) In every case the State Government makes an order under Sub-section (1) or (2), the Councillor shall be disqualified from becoming a
\nCouncillor, or a Councillor or member of any other local authority for a
\nperiod of five years from the date of such order.\n<\/p>\n
 In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, has
\nsubmitted that the jurisdiction of the State Government to remove a Councillor if
\nhe has been guilty of any misconduct in the discharge of his duties or of any
\ndisgraceful conduct cannot be cut down by excluding the cases covered by Section 44 of the Act. He further submits that the jurisdiction of the State
\nGovernment is concurrent in regard to all the matters falling under Section 16
\nand\/or Section 44 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Having regard to the scheme of the Act in the matter of removal of the
\nCouncillor, it is clear that a Councillor can be removed under Section 44 if he
\nincurs a disqualification specified in Section 16 (except the disqualifications
\nspecified in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of that section) or if he incurs a
\ndisqualification as prescribed in Section 44(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e). Such removal
\nhas to be in the manner prescribed. It is a settled position of law, that if law
\nprovides a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that
\nmanner only or not at all. A foolproof procedure is laid down in Section 44 and
\nthe Collector is named as a Competent Authority to decide whether a vacancy
\nhas arisen as a result of the Councillor incurring a disqualification and it is
\npertinent to note that the decision of the Collector in that regard is subject to an
\nappeal before the State Government. If this be the position in law, it is difficult
\nto read that the disqualifications contained in Section 16 and Section 44 would
\nalso fall within the compass of the phraseology used in Section 42 which reads
\nthus:–\n<\/p>\n
  “if such Councillor has been guilty of any misconduct in the discharge of
\nhis duties or of any disgraceful conduct.”\n<\/p>\n
 No doubt, the State Government has wide powers to remove a Councillor
\nin the matters pertaining to misconduct in the discharge of his duties or any
\ndisgraceful conduct but it is obvious that the misconduct or disgraceful conduct
\nreferred to in Section 42 would not cover and include the disqualifications
\ncontained in Section 16 or Section 44 of the Act. Reading of Section 42 in the
\nmanner canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 would render
\nthe provision contained in Section 44 nugatory. Section 42 is enacted to take care
\nof cases of misconduct and disgraceful conduct falling outside the
\ndisqualifications contained in Section 16 and Section 44 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The learned Counsel Shri P. C. Madkholkar appearing for the
\nrespondent No. 3 has submitted that Section 16 and Section 44 are so exhaustive
\nthat all possible misconducts and disgraceful conducts are covered therein and
\nnothing could be said to have been left out of it. We are not in agreement with this submission. It is possible to conceive of various other misconducts and
\ndisgraceful conducts which a Councillor could be accused of being guilty, which
\nfall outside the disqualifications contained in Section 16 and Section 44 of the
\nAct. We need not mention those situations as the same is not necessary. Both the
\nsections, viz. sections 42 and 44 operate in different spheres. Once it is found that
\nthe act complained of in regard to incurring of disqualification falls within the
\nambit of disqualifications contained in Section 16 [except the disqualification
\nspecified in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of the section] or under Section 44(1)(b),\n<\/p>\n
(c), (d) or (e), the procedure laid down in Section 44 has to be followed and the
\njurisdiction to determine, as to whether a Councillor has incurred a
\ndisqualification would vest in the Collector and the State Government being an
\nappellate Authority cannot exercise the powers of the Collector by entertaining a
\ncomplaint at the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear view that the second
\nrespondent passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and as such, the same
\nis nullity requiring its quashing and setting aside. We make it clear that though
\nother grounds are raised in the petition, we are not proceeding to decide the same
\nas the petition can be conveniently disposed of in the light of the interpretation
\nthat we have placed on Sections 42 and 44 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 10. It is brought to our notice that during pendency of this petition, the
\nlearned Single Judge of this Court by its order dated 13-5-2003 had passed an
\ninterim order in terms of prayer made in application dated 13-5-2003 bearing
\nC. A. No. 2706\/03. The prayer therein seeks stay of the operation and execution
\nof the letter dated 13-5-2003 filed at Annexure ‘A-1’. The letter at Annexure ‘A-1’
\ndated 3-5-2003 is in regard to taking of proceedings for filling in the post which
\nfell vacant pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No. 2 which is
\nimpugned in the instant writ petition. It is as such clear that because of interim
\norder passed by this Court the post occupied by the petitioner is still lying vacant.\n<\/p>\n
 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and we pass the following
\norder:–\n<\/p>\n
  The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed and set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
 There shall be no order as to the costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2004 (3) BomCR 445, 2003 (4) MhLj 649 Author: A Deshpande Bench: R Kochar, A Deshpande JUDGMENT A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-26T20:05:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dilip S\\\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-26T20:05:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2335,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Dilip S\\\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-26T20:05:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilip S\\\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-26T20:05:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-26T20:05:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003"},"wordCount":2335,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003","name":"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-26T20:05:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-so-devdatta-jejani-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilip S\/O Devdatta Jejani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 August, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}